Up In Smoke

The courts have not been sympathetic to constitutional objections
to drug testing such as those Hearn raised.

But Savannah as a whole was sharply divided over Hearn and her stand.
Superintendent Russo had recommended to the board that it fire Hearn,
and, in an editorial published a few days before the hearing, the
Morning News had agreed. The courts, the paper noted, have not
been sympathetic to constitutional objections to drug testing such as
those Hearn raised. (See the accompanying story, "Law and Order.") The teacher might be standing up for
what she believes in, it said, but legally "she doesn't have a leg to
stand on."

And though Sherry counted many colleagues among her supporters,
Savannah's teaching corps did not exactly rally to her side. "People
are very fond of Sherry, and everybody's saddened by what happened,"
says Kris Rawlins, a counselor at Groves High School and a teacher
representative to the board of education. "But I do know that
practically everybody in the school system supports the drug-free
workplace policy."

Even at Windsor, the staff was split as to whether Hearn's refusal
to take the drug test was an act of courage or simply dumb defiance. "A
component of the faculty feels like, 'This is your boss. When your boss
tells you to take the drug test, you do it,'" Anita Varner says.
"Another component of the faculty says, 'No, this is a
constitutional-rights issue.'"

When the hearing opened at 8 a.m., two members of the board
immediately recused themselves from the proceedings. In affidavits
filed with the board, Hearn's supporters had testified that the two had
strongly suggested that their minds were essentially made up against
the teacher; one of them allegedly said, "I know that nobody would
throw away 25 years [of teaching], or whatever it is, for something
this unimportant unless they had something to hide." (Both members
denied that they had prejudged Hearn before the hearing.)

Police testimony made it clear that the car's interior was
searched before Hearn was contacted—a violation of policy No.
766.

Over the next 16 hours, more than 20 witnesses testified before the
board. Police told how the drug dog had alerted them to the drug in
Hearn's car and how they ran a field test to confirm that it was
marijuana. But their testimony made it clear that the car's interior
was searched before Hearn was contacted--a violation of policy No. 766,
which states that school staff member's personal belongings, including
their cars, could be searched "only with the employee's consent."

Superintendent Russo admitted that the officers breached policy: "We
acknowledge the fact that, to a large degree, that particular procedure
was not followed." But he waved off its importance. What was paramount,
he argued, was the fact that Hearn's actions threatened the "integrity"
of the district's drug policy. Russo could have opted to reprimand
Hearn or extend her suspension, but instead he had recommended
termination, the maximum penalty, or "capital punishment" as her
lawyers referred to it. "There is no member of the staff--[whether] a
student, a teacher, an employee--that can be held above the policies of
the board of education," Russo testified.

Witnesses called on behalf of Hearn spoke of her teaching brilliance
and aired their concerns about the drug searches and the testing
policy. A Windsor teacher testified that police had treated minority
students with more suspicion than white students. A student told how
she feared that her classmates might hide their drug stash in her book
bag when police searched the classrooms--words that echoed Hearn's
argument that a student could have stashed the joint in her unlocked
car. "The people at school who use drugs," the student testified,
"they're smart enough to get rid of them when they hear that we're
going to have a drug search."

Evidence also bolstered Hearn's claims that she was a straight
arrow. A former student testified that after she graduated, Hearn had
tracked her down when rumors circulated about her running with a fast
crowd. Fighting back tears, the girl described how her former teacher
had preached to her the dangers of messing with drugs.

Moreover, Hearn's lawyers entered as evidence a medical report that
Hearn tested negative for drugs on April 5, about 30 hours after the
marijuana was found in her car. Unable to reach her lawyer on April 4,
Hearn had talked to two attorneys--a criminal specialist and a civil
rights lawyer--and both recommended that she take a drug test. Proof of
her contention that she was drug-free might help in her bid to win back
her job, the lawyers told her. Hearn had reluctantly agreed.

But board members greeted much of this evidence with skepticism.
Hearn might now object to the search of her car, but her behavior that
day contradicted her principled stand based on the Constitution. She
did, after all, agree to open her trunk for police. Also, her drug test
was not conducted under police supervision, which made its result
questionable.

The hearing to this point had been rancorous—several
students had cried under blunt questioning from board
members.

As the board hearing moved into the evening, Hearn's turn to testify
finally came. The hearing to this point had been rancorous--several
students had cried under blunt questioning from board members. Hearn
was exhausted, and, true to form, she didn't sugarcoat any of her
comments. At one point, when board member William Knight suggested that
she could have flushed her body of any trace of marijuana before her
drug test and talked about fluid levels in blood, she said, "I don't
know what you're talking about."

"Neither do I, really," Knight returned.

"Then maybe we should both shut up," Hearn replied sharply.

In the month since her suspension, Hearn had declined to talk to
reporters about her case. Now, she spoke in her own defense for the
first time. She reiterated her constitutional objections to the drug
test and searches, but she knew the board did not find that relevant.
"There is only one thing I know about whatever it was that was found in
my car," she said, "and that is that it was not mine."

What infuriated her, she told the board, was that until that very
moment, nobody from the central office had asked for her side of the
story. The discovery of the marijuana that day had set off a mad
scramble to find the exact wording of the district's drug policy. Since
then, district officials had followed procedure to the letter, letting
it dictate Hearn's fall from grace. The personnel director had phoned
Hearn once, but their brief conversation led the suspended teacher to
believe that she merely wanted to discuss insurance and other
housekeeping matters.